This is a very straightforward explanation of the collateral estoppel rule by Judge Pryor:
To establish that an issue is not identical to one resolved in previous litigation, a party “need only point to one material differentiating fact that would alter the legal inquiry,” CSX Transp., Inc. v. Bhd. of Maint. of Way Emps, 327 F.3d 1309, 1317 (11th Cir. 2003). The defendants can easily do so because the level of substantiation the injunctions require for the representations at issue in the contempt proceedings is not “identical” to any issue the district court decided in the earlier litigation.Makes sense, even under an abuse of discretion standard of review.
(The district judge will ding these guys anyway.)